Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
i understand the born-again v. coked-out angle, but does anyone under 50 really get bugged by an admission someone took drugs? I think the litmus test of no pot for Supreme's ensures weird-o nerds only. And makes otherwise honest candidates lie about not inhaling starting themselves down a slippery slope of half-truths.
|
I think at this point is more of a retribution thing: Republicans gave Clinton so much shit for a) "drug use" and b) draft-dodging that the Democrats can't help but point out when the Republicans put up someone with a similar history (worse on the drug use, maybe better on the draft-dodging, but only barely) up for President.
On a slightly more civil level, the judicial nomination problem is the same thing: the Democrats started it by refusing to confirm Reagan's (wingnut) appointee Bork, then the Republicans had to exact revenge when Clinton started appointing judges, and now Democrats have to respond in kind with Bush.
It's all pretty childish, but it avoids real issues.
